Financial Transaction Tax, Anyone?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Eh? What kind of business transaction is not driven by a profit motive?

Well, none, imo. I wrote that in response to the idea that people and companies are in business to "provide value" to customers, which sounds more like a pretext, to me.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Well, none, imo. I wrote that in response to the idea that people and companies are in business to "provide value" to customers, which sounds more like a pretext, to me.

Different scenarios: 1. Someone is trying to make lots of money and doesn't care about the ethics of doing so.
2. Someone is intensely in love with the idea of helping other people, sees the value in it, and decides that there's nothing wrong with making a very good living at it.
3. Someone wants to make money first and foremost and yet has found an effective way of making money and providing value at the same time.
4. Someone wants to provide value first and foremost and yet has found an effective way of providing value and making money at the same time.

I suspect you've had a lot of bad experiences with scenario 1 Beingist. Any truth to that? I know I have. Personally I would love a good way to move the principal motivator in the economy going from number 1 to number 2.

[Acting Like Godot]

There are more permutations.

Eg people who make money doing something they love (or do not love), but which is arguably of little or no value to society or even cause harm.

You see, "value" is quite subjective.

Arguably, the following occupations / products / services provide little or no value to the world:

1. Cosmetic plastic surgeons
2. Professional golf players
3. Pastors
4. Video games
5. American sit-coms
6. Designer handbags
7. Chiropractors
8. Potato chips
9. Artists that most people do not understand
10. Morticians
11. Ancient History professors
12. McDonalds
13. Pokemon
14. Fake eyelashes
15. Doormen
16. Marlboro and Dunhill
17. Alcohol manufacturers
18. William Hung
19. 90% of all iPad Apps
20. Defence technology companies
21. Hairstylists for pet dogs
22. Watch manufacturers, for all the people in the world who also carry a handphone which tells the time.
23. American colleges (judging by the number of Americans who say that college is too expensive and useless)
24. Professional psychics and Tarot card readers (if you don't believe that crap)
25. Meteorologists (who are regularly wrong anyway)
26. Cattle farmers (if you believe that vegetarian diets are best for humans)
27. Vegetables farmers (if you believe that all-meat diets are best for humans)
28. Steamers, ovens and frying pans (if you believe that raw food is best)
29. Vitamin D supplements (since you can get Vitamin D from the sun)
30. Dolphin trainers (if you believe that dolphins shouldn't be kept in captivity at all)
31. Hindu priests (if you believe that Christianity is the one true religion)
32. Archaeologists (what's the use of all those ancient pieces of crap anyway)
33. Astronauts (like, we haven't got enough problems to solve on Planet Earth)
34. Quantum physicists (do we really care about the smallest sub-particles in existence?)
35. Recipe book authors (haven't we got enough of those, in the past 100 years)
36. Bakers of white bread (brown is better for nutrition)
37. American congressmen (according to some Americans anyway)
38. F1 racing
39. Motorcycle stuntmen
40. "The Secret" (according to its critics)
41. Scientists who study the mating habits of rare beetles (is there a practical point to this research?)
42. Hair dyes (come on, folks, what's wrong with natural)
43. Shaving cream (doesn't soap work just as well)
44. Women's magazines
45. Publishers of religious books (according to the atheists)
46. Running shoes (Did you hear? Barefoot running is the in-thing now)
47. Formula milk (all the experts say that breast is best)
48. White rice (all the experts say that brown is best)

[rawxstasy]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Arguably, the following occupations / products / services provide little or no value to the world:


21. Hairstylists for pet dogs

Now wait a second..... doggie hairstylists provide a lot of value to my little world - which is what matters !!

I'm just kidding..

[MariconesUnited]

Value is absolutely subjective yes. When I mention value I mean perceived value. Thanks for noting it.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Different scenarios: 1. Someone is trying to make lots of money and doesn't care about the ethics of doing so.
2. Someone is intensely in love with the idea of helping other people, sees the value in it, and decides that there's nothing wrong with making a very good living at it.
3. Someone wants to make money first and foremost and yet has found an effective way of making money and providing value at the same time.
4. Someone wants to provide value first and foremost and yet has found an effective way of providing value and making money at the same time.

I suspect you've had a lot of bad experiences with scenario 1 Beingist. Any truth to that? I know I have. Personally I would love a good way to move the principal motivator in the economy going from number 1 to number 2.

Actually, most of my experiences, bad or otherwise are with scenario 1 people. I've never, ever even met any sincere scenario 2s or 4s (to my knowledge), and only one scenario 3 person (who was the CEO of my last job, and who deserves a special mention, because he was more about 1) making money and 2) providing people with jobs. Providing value was 3rd on that list).

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You see, "value" is quite subjective.

Indeed, and then there's that.

Arguably, the following occupations / products / services provide little or no value to the world:
18. William Hung

Rolling On the Floor, Laughing

Otherwise, thank you for helping me make my point, ALG, which was that the whole idea of business people 'providing value' is but a pretext for garnering as much profit as possible.

[MariconesUnited]

I'm feeling curious. What if we all just followed our dreams and natural talents? What if we used the power of the internet to share our needs, abilities, interests etc. Couldn't we naturally fulfill each other's needs and desires? What if we were all conscious of our personal impacts on the environment and its effects on our health, and just decided to offset that effect? I'm sure some people simply wouldn't care about all that, but I think a lot of people can naturally counter-balance that tendency. What if we didn't use a ''middle man'' ie. money for all that?

Now please don't misunderstand me, I honestly don't hold out any hope of all that happening. I'm just playing mind games. What could be disadvantages with this kind of scenario vs. reality? I'm really curious.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

What if we didn't use a ''middle man'' ie. money for all that?

It would be very inconvenient.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I'm feeling curious. What if we all just followed our dreams and natural talents? What if we used the power of the internet to share our needs, abilities, interests etc. Couldn't we naturally fulfill each other's needs and desires? What if we were all conscious of our personal impacts on the environment and its effects on our health, and just decided to offset that effect? I'm sure some people simply wouldn't care about all that, but I think a lot of people can naturally counter-balance that tendency. What if we didn't use a ''middle man'' ie. money for all that?

Now please don't misunderstand me, I honestly don't hold out any hope of all that happening. I'm just playing mind games. What could be disadvantages with this kind of scenario vs. reality? I'm really curious.

This sounds like the Zietgiest thing, which I was initially interested in, but quickly lost that interest after seeing its originator in an interview talk in such a technocratic way as to only lead me into utter confusion.

Otherwise, I can dig it, MU, though I think it's utopian. There was a barter movement starting up back when I was in high school, and those that I spoke with at the time thought along these lines. But, like socialism, although it might look good on paper, it doesn't take into account human nature, which has always seemed to me to be inherently greedy (though I'm trying to get over that. I really am ).

[Acting Like Godot]

You are a singer. You wish to take a cab. It's a barter world. The taxi driver doesn't like music. What do you do?

You are a butcher. Your neighbour grows cabbages. You would like some cabbages, but your neighbour is vegetarian. How do you trade with him?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You are a singer. You wish to take a cab. It's a barter world. The taxi driver doesn't like music. What do you do?

You are a butcher. Your neighbour grows cabbages. You would like some cabbages, but your neighbour is vegetarian. How do you trade with him?

Indeed, and then there's the practicality thing.

But, although I could be wrong, I think MU isn't talking about the needs end, but rather the giving side of the equation. Something along the lines of the cab driver offering free rides on some sort of open exchange, and then checking out his book (if, hypothetically, he prefers reading to music) as he so desires.

Am I close on that, MU?

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Indeed, and then there's the practicality thing.

But, although I could be wrong, I think MU isn't talking about the needs end, but rather the giving side of the equation. Something along the lines of the cab driver offering free rides on some sort of open exchange, and then checking out his book (if, hypothetically, he prefers reading to music) as he so desires.

Am I close on that, MU?

How would this work?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Beingist

This sounds like the Zietgiest thing, which I was initially interested in, but quickly lost that interest after seeing its originator in an interview talk in such a technocratic way as to only lead me into utter confusion.

Otherwise, I can dig it, MU, though I think it's utopian. There was a barter movement starting up back when I was in high school, and those that I spoke with at the time thought along these lines. But, like socialism, although it might look good on paper, it doesn't take into account human nature, which has always seemed to me to be inherently greedy (though I'm trying to get over that. I really am ).

About the highlighted part: I'm really glad to hear that Regarding the old ''humans are inherently greedy'' argument, I think there's some truth to that. However what about everyone seems to be ignoring is that our system encourages greedy selfish behaviour. I think compassion and sharing are also a part of human nature. I'd like to see a system that would effectively promote that type of behaviour over what we have now. All those protesters and rioters could really work on something like that. They could really make a powerful impact if they got organized. Unfortunately it seems to me they're more about disrupting the status quo than coming up with creative answers to our systemic problems. That's my take on it anyway.

I know what I'm talking about is utopian. I suppose saying I don't think there's any chance of any of it happening is quite enough for some people though Yet I'm talking about this because I think there's a limited perception problem. I like thinking outside the box. I think it's very useful for situations like this.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You are a singer. You wish to take a cab. It's a barter world. The taxi driver doesn't like music. What do you do?

You are a butcher. Your neighbour grows cabbages. You would like some cabbages, but your neighbour is vegetarian. How do you trade with him?

I didn't mention bartering for a reason: it's just a more ancient form of trading. Essentially the same as using money, mindset-wise. Let's use our imaginations. What if we made it top priority to make sure that every living person's basic needs are met? I think we could effectively eliminate the fear of scarcity. We'd be much more open to sharing. We could see the futility and unsustainability of the accumulation of material goods upon which our entire system is based upon.

Basically I wonder what we could accomplish if we removed the profit motive. I think we'd have to replace it with some other motive. I don't know what that would be. I would love hearing some ideas.

I notice you equated one person with one trade by the way. I think as human beings we have much more than a single ability. It's unfortunate that a lot of people fall into single-function lives. It seems to come with the limitations of not having enough money for a lot of people. In any event I think there's more and more people who are doing multiple jobs or careers and to me that's encouraging.

Originally Posted by Beingist

Indeed, and then there's the practicality thing.

But, although I could be wrong, I think MU isn't talking about the needs end, but rather the giving side of the equation. Something along the lines of the cab driver offering free rides on some sort of open exchange, and then checking out his book (if, hypothetically, he prefers reading to music) as he so desires.

Am I close on that, MU?

What book?

What I'm saying is that giving for the sake of giving feels wonderful. Once the fear of scarcity is removed from an individual exploring the joy of giving becomes a natural curiosity. I know for a fact that I would be doing what I am doing right now if money wasn't a factor. What if money wasn't a factor for anyone? I think the individual would practice, on the whole, a lot more different lines of work than today. If we got bored or unfulfilled we could freely explore other ways of contributing.

Regarding the Zeitgeist thing...I've had an idea like this since before hearing about them. I like their approach. I don't see how their idea could be gradually implemented. They don't seem to see it either. I don't think using some centralized supercomputer for everything is a good idea though. In fact it's downright scary. I'd rather look for other alternatives.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Otherwise, thank you for helping me make my point, ALG, which was that the whole idea of business people 'providing value' is but a pretext for garnering as much profit as possible.

That's a very cynical view of the world. Although I can't blame you for it. I've met some people who genuinely just want to help though. Usually they'll fail at business

Yet I wonder how you categorize ''business people'' in the first place. I think, for example, that a lot of people in the arts and entertainment industry are doing what they love first and foremost. I can't imagine working in the video game industry either if there's no love for video games.

Basically my mind is trying to rescue yours from the black pit of despair it seems to be infatuated with

[Andrew Brunelle]

Much of our tax money is spent on the wars we are in here in America. Not only that, but the more we are taxed, the more money of ours the government has to squander. I prefer a lower tax across the board, especially on lower income workers. Why not just tax the rich an extra 10% and that way we'll have a lot more money for the government to throw around?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

That's a very cynical view of the world. Although I can't blame you for it. I've met some people who genuinely just want to help though. Usually they'll fail at business

It may be highly critical, but on the whole, I think I'm moving out of cynical. Wanting to help but failing at business sounds like me. At my last job, supposedly I lost the company $100,000, though they didn't tell me exactly how, and they didn't fire me for it. Instead, I got fired for telling a joke.

Yet I wonder how you categorize ''business people'' in the first place. I think, for example, that a lot of people in the arts and entertainment industry are doing what they love first and foremost. I can't imagine working in the video game industry either if there's no love for video games.

Business people to me are those people who specialize and take a special interest in business transactions. Arts, entertainment, sports people are not business people. It's not the money you make, it's how you make it.

Basically my mind is trying to rescue yours from the black pit of despair it seems to be infatuated with

I'm not infatuated, MU, with any "black pits", though I can see what you're trying to say here, and I'm working on that, myself, with this very thread, in fact.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Regarding the Zeitgeist thing...I've had an idea like this since before hearing about them. I like their approach. I don't see how their idea could be gradually implemented. They don't seem to see it either. I don't think using some centralized supercomputer for everything is a good idea though. In fact it's downright scary. I'd rather look for other alternatives.

Indeed, they have some plans for implementation, and they regard something to do with technology. I also think they're LoAers, though I could be wrong on that. But, I can't help but wonder if they might have something to do, or what they think about the "technocrats" (read: bankers) taking over Greece and Italy.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Peterw

How would this work?

I dunno, it's not my idea, but MU's.

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by Beingist

I dunno, it's not my idea, but MU's.

Say there is "Some kind of centralised exchange" how would it be run, who by and what would be their incentive to make it work? It probably wouldn't be long until we ended up back where we are now..

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Business people to me are those people who specialize and take a special interest in business transactions. Arts, entertainment, sports people are not business people.

It's naive to think that arts, entertainment and sports people cannot also be business people.

If David Beckham was just a sports person and not a business person, he would stick to this:



... and not this:



There are numerous arts, entertainment and sports people who take their ability and fame in arts / entertainment / sports and spin it off, like a clever business person would, into a variety of other money-making avenues.

Sports stars become models; pop stars sell T-shirts; actors get ghostwriters to write their biographies; writers sell their book rights to movie directors; sports people make money endorsing perfumes, running shoes etc etc.


Magic Johnson selling chocolates


Madonna's ad for Louis Vuitton. Where's the music and dance, please?


JK Rowling's other source of income.


Brad Pitt selling watches.


Jessica Simpson now sells shoes and handbags - her own business.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Peterw

Say there is "Some kind of centralised exchange" how would it be run, who by and what would be their incentive to make it work? It probably wouldn't be long until we ended up back where we are now..

The centralized exchange thing was Beingist's thing maybe he will elaborate on that?

I don't have tons of details to give out unfortunately. It's a very ambitious idea and I don't have all of the tools at my disposal to bring it to fruition. I don't have all the details fleshed out as you can see. My idea is more to bring out the discussion a little. Use a wider perspective. For example if we remove the profit motive maybe we can offset that by a recognition motive and some other motives.

I'm not pretending to have all the answers. I'd rather have a discussion on something like this instead. Like, people bringing forth their own proposals, debating which element is closer to being possible and which is farther etc.

I'm thinking of splitting the thread as this would go off-topic from this current thread. I think I'll ask a mod if I see any interest.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

It's naive to think that arts, entertainment and sports people cannot also be business people.

Yes, and of course, I'm naive because I said specifically that there was no way that an arts, entertainment or sports person could ever be a business person.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Peterw

Say there is "Some kind of centralised exchange" how would it be run, who by and what would be their incentive to make it work? It probably wouldn't be long until we ended up back where we are now..

Pete, you almost seem to react to the idea of a centralized exchange the way my dog used to react whenever he heard the word, "walk".

In other words, your day trader slip is showing.

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

The centralized exchange thing was Beingist's thing maybe he will elaborate on that?

Actually, MU, I was only wondering, myself, about the details of your idea, and the centralized exchange was the only way I could visualize that kind of thing happening, which is why I mentioned it. But since--

I don't have tons of details to give out unfortunately.

--I guess we're not likely to get the details, at least just yet.

But, to be sure, apparently we've got Pete's attention with the centralized exchange thing

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Actually, most of my experiences, bad or otherwise are with scenario 1 people. I've never, ever even met any sincere scenario 2s or 4s (to my knowledge), and only one scenario 3 person (who was the CEO of my last job, and who deserves a special mention, because he was more about 1) making money and 2) providing people with jobs. Providing value was 3rd on that list).

Maybe you should consider one of Steve's CGWs? I know I am. I'm sure there's tons of people who fall into those categories that attend them. I'd like to meet you in any event

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

Much of our tax money is spent on the wars we are in here in America. Not only that, but the more we are taxed, the more money of ours the government has to squander. I prefer a lower tax across the board, especially on lower income workers. Why not just tax the rich an extra 10% and that way we'll have a lot more money for the government to throw around?

I don't think you grasp the extent of the US debt. Lowering taxes for most and punishing financial success further would likely worsen the current situation even more.

Originally Posted by Beingist

Indeed, they have some plans for implementation, and they regard something to do with technology.

What are those plans exactly? I haven't kept up recently.

ALG...Agreed. I think Beingist's idea of ''business people'' is too narrow too. In fact I met a casting director once who told me that most successful artists from the US are also savvy business people. And it makes perfect sense when you think about it. If you take musicians and singers for example, I think that on the whole you'll find most of them find their motivation in the incredible feeling of sharing something personal with others, hopefully finding the universality in that personal emotion they're sharing. Or just being on stage in front of thousands of fans. They may not think in those terms, but the primary motivating force is ''providing value'', not maximizing profits. And yet I don't see anything wrong with them maximizing their value and making as much money as possible.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I'm feeling curious. What if we all just followed our dreams and natural talents? What if we used the power of the internet to share our needs, abilities, interests etc. Couldn't we naturally fulfill each other's needs and desires?

I think it's this part that sparked the exchange terminology. Yeah I suppose we could create an online exchange thing. Should I ask for a thread split? Any interest?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Maybe you should consider one of Steve's CGWs? I know I am. I'm sure there's tons of people who fall into those categories that attend them. I'd like to meet you in any event

Indeed, I wouldn't mind meeting anyone off this board, but I'm not likely to be doing any CGWs to do it.

What are those plans exactly? I haven't kept up recently.

Well, as I say, what I've heard, I can't understand. It's, like, ALGese

They may not think in those terms, but the primary motivating force is ''providing value'', not maximizing profits. And yet I don't see anything wrong with them maximizing their value and making as much money as possible.

Of course, it's all debatable, but I would still argue that 99 out of every 100 successful "business people" do everything for the buck, in the end, and despite anything you may hear otherwise.

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I think it's this part that sparked the exchange terminology. Yeah I suppose we could create an online exchange thing. Should I ask for a thread split? Any interest?

Can't you just start an entirely new thread?

Might be worth it. I'm curious, myself, not to mention Pete

[Beingist]

Just read about this newly proposed financial transaction tax with a 'twist'--

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/bu...s.html?_r=1&hp

They're calling it a 'Robin Hood' Tax, but I'm still leery of the imposition of new revenue streams.